All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 9, 2022 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
56:22
9/11 Truth Matters 21 Years Later

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more https://rumble.com/c/c-1647952 https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas https://theinfowarrior.podbean.com/ https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior https://twitter.com/JasonBermas PayPal [email protected] #BermasBrigade Show less

|

Time Text
Explosives In 9-11 00:05:15
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here.
And as most of you know, the 21st anniversary of 9-11 is literally around the corner.
And I am lucky enough to be joined by three people who have fought extremely hard over not only the last several years, but well over a decade in some cases to bring that truth out.
And believe you and me, this issue still absolutely matters, is a crux to where we are as a nation and as a world.
So without further ado, I want to thank my guests for coming on.
We are joined by Barbara Oniger, Richard Gage, and Mick Harrison.
And we're just going to shortly go through how each of you got involved in 9-11 truth and why it's such an important issue.
So let's start with somebody my audience may not be familiar with.
Mick, tell us how you got involved in the litigation aspect of this.
Okay, thanks, Jason.
And I apologize for being in transit during your program.
Best I could do.
So I got involved, surprisingly, by walking into a meeting and hearing people talk about explosives being planted in a building, to my shock and amazement.
This was a meeting of some environmental activists in Indiana who I was representing as a lawyer.
I think most folks know I'm a public interest lawyer of 30 years now.
So I just walked into this meeting thinking I was going to be working on forest protection, and folks were talking about explosives.
And I said, what are you talking about?
And they were talking about David Ray Griffin's first president public presentation about his research and analysis of the 9-11 Commission and his conclusion that the Trade Center buildings did not come down from fires alone or plane strikes.
They came down because they had explosives planted in them.
And I thought, you know, that was incredible.
To be honest, I didn't really believe it.
And I said, well, do you have any evidence for this?
And they said, well, there is evidence for it.
You know, David Ray Griffin has explained some of it.
But they also said there's a chemist here in town, just moved to Bloomington.
His name is Kevin Ryan.
And he can educate you on the technical evidence on the demolition.
And I didn't know Kevin at that point.
I've since, you know, come to know him well and respect his work and consider him a friend.
But he did educate me.
And that was, oh my goodness, I hate to think 2007 or something.
And you know, Kevin has been in this even before that, well before that.
Rest in peace, David Ray Griffin, who also put out a ton of good work on 9-11 truth, the demolitions, and beyond.
What then pushes you into the legal aspects of this?
Well, that's a good question.
I mean, as a public interest lawyer, you know, government accountability, government integrity is my focus, has been always.
And when Kevin convinced me, and I was probably a little reluctant, but he did, with evidence, convince me that this was a real thing about the use of explosives, I decided ethically, I didn't have a choice.
I just had to look into it, investigate, and see if I could be of assistance with my legal background, which brought me to the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, which had not yet incorporated, but was an association.
That was six or seven years ago now.
And Jane Clark, who was the head of the organization, invited me in.
We started discussing legal strategies.
I mapped out a litigation plan for the group that would hopefully move us towards transparency and accountability on the 9-11 crimes.
And we've been pursuing that plan for the last six years.
Thank you so much.
Barbara, we've spoken at events together.
You've been in the game for quite some time.
What was the initial thing that got you to start questioning 9-11 and then become the researcher and activist that you have been?
No, that's the trillion-dollar question, right, for all of us.
I would like to just say, I think you said, rest in peace.
Professor David Ray Griffin is very much alive and with us.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought that David had passed years ago.
Yeah, no, My bad.
We are dedicating our Lawyers Committee event this tomorrow, Saturday, September 10th, beginning at 1 p.m. Pacific, 4 p.m. Eastern.
And we'll be talking about how to watch that here on this show.
We are dedicating it to Professor David Ray Griffin.
uh richard is also dedicating his film festival with speakers um the next day on september 11th to professor david ray griffin because of his phenomenal um i think he's he's working on his 14th book right now on 9-11 or related to 9-11 so i just wanted to to make sure i'm glad you told me that i you I don't even know where I came up with that.
Resting In Peace? 00:06:40
I thought several years ago he had passed.
My bad.
No, no, no.
That was important to set the record straight on that.
No, he's very much with us.
But anyway, we'll be talking about our dedication a little bit later.
So to answer your question now, I was working for the Navy before 9-11 on 9-11.
And after 9-11, believe it or not, for another 11 years, I was the senior military affairs journalist at the Naval Post Graduate School here in the Monterey Peninsula of California on the central coast of California, where it was 106 yesterday, by the way, but it's better today.
And so in that position, working for the Naval Post Graduate School, which was DOD's and still is, DOD's premier science, technology, and national security affairs graduate research university.
So that was a very responsible, journalistic, scientific, technical position.
And when I arrived at the gate of this military base, even though it's a full-fledged graduate university research university, it is nevertheless a military base.
You have to get through the gate with a armed guard.
And when I got to the gate that morning, because of the time difference, I did not know what had happened on the East Coast with a time difference.
I guess it was 9, it was already 12 p.m.
So everything except the fall of World Trade Center 7 in the evening, about 5.20 had already happened, but I didn't know.
So I got to the gate and they wouldn't let me in.
In fact, the public affairs officer, who was my supervisor, my boss, whatever, was actually at the gate along with the guard.
And he said, Barb, you're going to have to leave.
It's only so-called essential personnel.
And there were only about 12 essential personnel from the Admiral on down, including the public affairs officer, who were even allowed to go into the base that morning.
And I said, What happened?
And he said, Oh, you don't know.
So I went home and I drove to my mother's home.
And I said, Turn on the TV, mom.
We're at war.
I'd been told enough at the gate by the public affairs officer.
He said, Well, we're at war.
Now, that's very interesting that the public affairs officer of the Naval Postgraduate School told me when I got to the gate that the United States was at war.
How did he know that?
Okay.
Anyway, so I got home and I watched the ad nauseum fall of the towers.
And when I turned on the TV and my mother and brother and I watched it, I knew something was terribly wrong.
And from that moment on, I became a researcher and activist.
And the amazing thing, we don't have to go into the details, but I started putting out what I believed was the truth about 9-11 immediately on local media.
And I was not fired.
I was not disciplined.
And I stayed in that job as a senior military affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School for another 11 years until I retired.
Excellent.
And Richard Gage, a lot of my audience knows that you were one of the pioneers behind architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth.
You now have RichardGage911.org.
What was your initial moment of questioning 9-11?
Well, I was listening to David Ray Griffin.
In fact, actually, the day was March 29th, 2006.
He was being interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner in the San Francisco Bay Area.
And I was shocked to hear him talk about an alternative theory as to how the towers came down.
I hadn't heard any.
I mean, I was a flag waving Reagan Republican, wanted to go out and get those bastards who did this to us in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
So I was swallowed the official narrative, hook line and sinker.
But David was talking about explosions and first responders, 118 of them hearing, seeing, being blown around the building by explosions.
He talked about a third tower that I didn't even know.
There was a third tower.
And I'm an architect.
I would have heard.
I would have thought he was crazy.
I mean, yeah, this is a 47-story skyscraper that drops like a rock straight down uniformly, symmetrically into its own footprint in the afternoon of 9-11.
And that's shocking.
It looks exactly like a controlled demolition as I went and saw him the next day.
He was in a packed theater at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland.
I couldn't even get in.
I had to go home and watch on the live stream.
I did research.
I assembled a PowerPoint, which I'd never done before.
I took it to the firm of architects that I worked for.
All 15 of them agreed after months of discussing this.
I bribed them.
They had to come in and get free pizza.
But after looking at the evidence, all of them agreed, yeah, this is a controlled demolition.
These all three of these are.
We got to have a real investigation.
So that was my first 15 architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth.
Now there are 3,500 architects and engineers signed on to the petition over at AE 911 Truth.
And where I'm now separated, my wife and I work very hard together now to get out now 75 podcasts.
We've got five interviews a day this season.
I've never had so many calls for interviews.
We just did the Stew Peters show, which was an exceptional opportunity to reach many, many millions of people.
So we're on the warpath still.
And then, yes, we do have an important set of events on all sides here coming up September 10th and 11th to talk about later, too.
So before we get into those events that are coming up literally tomorrow and on the 21st anniversary, I want to ask Mick, where are we legally?
Because there have been many cases over the years, many of them championed by family members of people who were lost on 9-11.
Events Coming Up 00:07:11
What's going on on the legal front, Mick?
Oh, we lost his audio.
Go ahead.
All right.
Hopefully you'll be right back on, guys.
Give us one moment while we wait on.
Yeah, go ahead, Nick.
No, that was me.
Oh, no.
Okay.
So Mick is still not there.
Mick, just jump in when your audio gets back on.
I'm not quite sure what happened there.
But let's talk about those events that are coming up.
We still don't hear you, Mick.
Go ahead, Richard.
Okay, I'm back now.
There we are.
There you go.
Go ahead, Nick.
Talk about the lawyers.
A little technical intransitive thing.
So short version, we have filed, the lawyers committee has filed several federal lawsuits.
Three were under the Freedom of Information Act to try to get documents regarding the 9-11 attacks from federal agencies.
We did file a lawsuit in New York related to our grand jury petition.
You may know, Jason, that we submitted a detailed analysis of the evidence of demolition to the special grand jury in the federal special grand jury in New York.
However, it doesn't seem to have made its way to the actual grand jurors.
The U.S. attorney who we sent it to to provide to the grand jurors has chosen, it appears, to not deliver it.
So we sued the U.S. Attorney over that.
That led to a district court decision that several family members who joined us, some first responders who joined us, and architects and engineers and the lawyers committee that none of us had legal standing to sue.
The court didn't decide we were wrong about the duty of the U.S. Attorney to deliver our petition to the grand jurors.
The court just said we didn't have a right to litigate it.
So we appealed to the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Recently, that court decided we didn't have standing.
And so we are now thinking about bringing that case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There's also an option to bring it back to the Second Circuit for rehearing.
So that is a decision we hope to get feedback from the public on during our events coming up to help us make it.
Let's go back to the standing aspect because it must be frustrating that you're constantly submitting valid evidence to these court systems.
And when they tell you that you don't have standing, that means they don't even have to look at the evidence, correct?
Yeah, yeah, I'm afraid so.
And it is frustrating, Jason.
That's a bit of an understatement.
And it's, you know, we're doing this on behalf of the families and the first responders.
And I can't tell you how frustrating it is for me as a lawyer to not allow those folks to have their day in court after all they suffered from these tragic events.
The court is wrong, by the way, on this standing issue.
Family members have standing.
First responders have standing.
Even the nonprofits involved have standing.
Just to give you, I guess, the extreme example, in the case we were just talking about, we petitioned the grand jury itself.
We didn't just petition the U.S. Attorney.
Our petition was addressed to the grand jury under the First Amendment.
It's one of those petition for redress types of things that we all learn in civics class.
We have a right to do, or we thought we had a right to do in the U.S.
And so what the court decided was even under our First Amendment claim, which was simply, look, the U.S. Attorney is obstructing the exercise of our rights to petition a government entity, the grand jury.
The court basically said, unless you're harmed in some special way beyond the interference with your First Amendment right, you don't have standing.
And that's basically what the Second Circuit just said.
And it's completely wrong.
It's wrong as a matter of law.
And it's unconstitutional.
And it's a very disturbing precedent, which we hope will be reversed.
But, you know, your point about it being frustrating is a bit of an understatement.
We have had that same problem.
We did bring a lawsuit in in the District of Columbia federal court.
We sued the FBI.
And I don't know if you remember, Jason, there was a second 9-11 commission.
People remember the first one.
The second one was the 9-11 Review Commission.
It was chaired by Ed Meese.
It was done in the 2013-2015 timeframe.
And Congress had asked the FBI to look at all the 9-11 evidence, including all the evidence that the first commission did not address.
And that was, in our view, a statutory mandate from Congress.
So the FBI created this commission, this new one, pretended to look at the evidence, basically ignored all the demolition evidence and several other categories of evidence.
And so we sued to force them to do what Congress asked the FBI to do.
And the court in that case also said we did not have standing.
And their reasoning in that case was that the Congress didn't put the requirement for a public report into the actual statute.
They just put it in legislative history.
So we thought we had solved that problem, even though it's, you know, we didn't agree with the court.
But when we brought the New York case, the grand jury case we were talking about, we had, well, I should back up.
There's another case that I'm bringing for the architects and engineers.
So let me give you the short version on standing and let you go ahead with Richard and Barb, or we can tell you more about the lawsuits if you want.
But to show you how bad it's gotten on the standing, when architects and engineers sued NIST on their new lawsuit to get corrected the World Trade Center 7 report, which was basically a sham concluding that fires brought Building 7 down, even though it hadn't been hit by an airplane.
And if you watch Building 7 fall down, you can see what Richard just described, which is it's just a classic controlled demolition.
So in that lawsuit, we have a federal statute, the National Construction Safety Team Act, and it requires NIST to issue a public report.
So unlike in our prior case, in the FBI case, here we have Congress putting into a statute a requirement for a public report explicitly, and that should have solved the standing problem even for a skeptical court.
But in this case, the court said, no, even that was not enough.
And so now that's being appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
So there's more I can tell you about the lawsuits, but just, I mean, we haven't given up.
We're still proceeding on several fronts.
And we may be, we're going to be asking for feedback in our anniversary event on whether we should go with a major new lawsuit, which is really focused on government cover-up.
But you can ask me about that when you're ready.
Well, let's talk about this because the court system seems so corrupted that we have to continue to bring this information to the court of public opinion.
And I just want to shout out my old film partner, Dylan Avery, who I did loose change with for putting out in the last couple years, both Unspeakable and then the documentary about the Fairbanks Alaska study.
Turning Point Appeal 00:14:55
Because not only are they well produced, they're concise, they show a plethora of evidence that we've been lied to.
And you guys are continuing to bring that evidence with these events and film festivals.
Richard, Barbara, whoever wants to take it away, what do you have coming up in the next two days and why is it important?
Well, let's go in chronological order.
Barb, you want to take the September 10th event tomorrow?
Yeah, sure.
Okay, so Richard and the Lawyers Committee have two great events coming up.
I'm going to tell you about the first one, which is tomorrow, and that's the Lawyers Committee event.
Richard's on the board.
We're all on the board of the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry.
And you can learn all about it and sign up real quick by going to our website, which is LC.
That's Larry Charlie.
So LCFOR911.org.
L-C-F-O-R 911.org.
There, Jason has our website up on the screen.
And on the homepage, it'll be really easy to find how to register.
It's a register button.
So click on that and you just give us, plug in your email address, and you will get a link tomorrow morning before, well before the event, Saturday morning, September 10th, to join the Zoom.
So it will be a Zoom online live free event.
And we've got very exciting speakers.
We have a number of speakers, of course, from the Lawyers Committee board speaking about our individual expertise and also about what the Lawyers Committee as an organization is doing.
And then we have very exciting guest speakers, including world-famous attorney Daniel Sheehan, who is on the Lawyers Committee Advisory Committee.
And he's going to be speaking on what it takes to win historic cases, which will be very exciting.
And we also have Christopher Goya.
I'm sure that your listeners, Jason, know all about Chris.
He is a passionate 9-11 truth advocate, former New York firefighter and New York area commissioner, fire commissioner, and he will be speaking.
And also Eric Lawyer, who is the founder of Firefighters for 9-11 Truth, will be speaking.
But I think most importantly, as Mick Harrison, our litigation director mentioned just a few minutes ago, we are going to have an interactive session after the presentations by the speakers.
We're going to have an interactive session with our viewers.
By that time, our viewers will have heard from Mick and some of the others of us about where we are legally, which Mick touched on here in this show.
And he's going to go into a bit more detail, I'm sure, so that people will understand the context.
And then at the end of our symposium, which is only four hours long, so you can hang in there for the whole thing.
It'll be very informative and historic.
The viewers will be given a chance once you've registered and get the link tomorrow morning.
You'll be given a chance to weigh in on where you think, individually, you think we should be going because you will have heard some of the options or probably all of the options from Mick.
So that's really an important part.
And at the very end, we're going to have Q's and A's for our viewers.
So it's an exciting event.
Again, to register and get the link tomorrow morning after you've registered on our website.
Go to lcfor911.org as soon as you can.
And then, Richard, what do we have coming up on the 9-11 anniversary itself?
Well, it's a 9-11 Truth Film Festival.
And this is going to be an opportunity for everybody to watch some great films and listen to some incredible speakers.
We will be dedicating our event also to the honor of David Ray Griffin, who has let the 9-11 truth movement know that he is indeed only has a few months to live.
So he is still with us, but we don't know for how long.
And we wanted to take the opportunity to honor him with some passages from his work, talking about his books, bringing on his right-hand person, Elizabeth Woodworth, who, along with David, created the 9-11 Consensus Panel.
So 9-11consensus.org is where there are a couple of dozen points of consensus reached by a panel of 21 experts on the best 9-11 evidence.
So she'll be walking through that early.
We will also have our own Mick Harrison there to talk in more detail about the legal struggles and opportunities and victories that we've had and what and invite comment also.
So in the afternoon, we have James Corbett bringing to bear a series of documentaries that he made False Flag, The Secret History of Al-Qaeda.
There's three parts.
The second part we'll be showing, the first part we're going to encourage our supporters to watch before the film festival.
And then James is going to premiere the world premiere of his third part.
It's about Osama bin Laden and what really happened to him in the last several years.
Was it according to the official narrative where the SEAL team got in there?
Well, we'll find out, probably not.
But this series of speakers and films will bring us all closer together with opportunities to comment in real time and have an interactive event as well.
So that's pretty exciting for us.
Now, I'll be talking in that on September 11th, begins at, by the way, 10 a.m. Pacific time.
I'll be updating everybody about this incredible film we're making, 9-11 Crime Scene to Courtroom, where Mick and I are featured bringing together the evidence, the 60 exhibits that he was talking about having submitted for a special grand jury investigation.
I'll be walking the grand jurors through those exhibits.
This is the most comprehensive body of World Trade Center evidence ever compiled, and we'll be looking right into the eyes of the grand jurors.
And Mick will be talking to them about what this evidence means.
How should they be treating it?
What are their opportunities and their obligations as a grand jury to subpoena witnesses to get more because they're an investigative body?
So who are persons of material interest they might ask questions of?
So that will all be filmed in the next couple of months.
And this is a fundraiser to create the necessary funds for that film.
It's a $19,000 fundraiser.
Barb, the LC 9-11 event tomorrow is also a fundraiser.
Do you want to tell the information about that?
Thanks for the queue on that.
Also, I don't know if I mentioned that our Lawyers Committee event, free online, begins tomorrow, September 10th at 1 p.m. Pacific, 4 p.m. Eastern, and will go for approximately four hours.
So I'm not sure I gave the time, but yes, it is free.
You do have to go to our homepage, lc4911.org, and sign up to get the link tomorrow morning.
But we are asking for your generous donation.
This is a, as you're going to hear more in this show probably a bit, but a lot tomorrow at our Lawyers Committee event.
This is a real turning point moment for us.
We've got some really serious decisions as to whether to go to the Supreme Court.
This is our biggest case.
It is our World Trade Center 12 and 7 grand jury petition and evidentiary exhibits case.
And we have been doing this for years.
And we have been kept, the gatekeepers have kept us out.
And the question is, do we do something else as well?
Or do we, or can we go to the Supreme Court?
That's a really significant decision.
And it will take a lot of funding no matter what we decide.
So we're at a real financial turning point.
We're at a real historical turning point.
So we definitely need your contribution.
So just go to lc4911.org.
You can donate now.
You can donate anytime.
Before, during the event, tomorrow, after the event, we really need your help.
And we encourage that, especially because we're also at a societal turning point where 9-11 truth was certainly smeared in its heydays and they broke out the debunkers.
And now we've seen an evolution to fact checkers and the age of quote-unquote misinformation and disinformation.
And we're seeing media talking heads now acting as though questioning 9-11 is on a criminal level.
How do we combat that aspect of this, Mick?
Because I'm sure you're hearing those echoes more and more as you try to take this to the court system.
Well, you know, it's an interesting question, Jason, because the courts have dealt with us professionally.
We haven't been accused of being wild-eyed conspiracy theorists by any judge yet.
And I don't expect that to happen.
We have been kept out of court on this threshold standing issue.
And that is a solvable legal problem.
It's solvable in a couple of ways.
It's just the media and some members of the public who have been so propagandized for so many years to think of anyone who questions the official story as being a lunatic.
But, you know, there are millions of us in the category of those who question the official story.
I'm pretty sure we're not all lunatics.
And, you know, our approach at the Lawyers Committee has just been to focus on the evidence and apply the law to it.
So we don't speculate.
We don't really theorize that much.
We just investigate, document, and litigate.
And there's not much that's not credible about that approach.
I mean, we can support our position much more thoroughly than the government can support the government's position.
So it's which shows why the standing issue is so important.
Because once we cut through that threshold obstacle of the legal right to sue, we're going to be able to really make the case on the merits, you know, with the evidence Richard has articulated, that Barbara has investigated, that our colleagues have put together, including David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Niels Herrett.
You go down the list, architects and engineers.
The case is there.
I mean, that evidence is dispositive on demolition.
It's not just a nice theory.
You know, we can prove it.
So the standing issue is important.
Now, just so members who might be watching this, members of 9-11 families or first responders don't get the wrong impression.
The types of lawsuits the lawyers committee has brought so far have been based on federal statutes.
There are other rights to sue, and a big example of that is the lawsuit against the Saudi entities by the 9-11 families in New York.
That lawsuit has not been dismissed for lack of standing, nor will it be.
It is proceeding.
And the reason is, anytime you have a victim, a plaintiff who's been harmed personally, either financially or with their health, or has lost a family member, the courts will recognize that standing if they're suing for money damages or some type of injunctive relief to cure the harm.
That's a little different type of case than the statutory enforcement case that we've been bringing.
Now, it takes a lot more money to bring that type of large-scale case for damages like it's happening against the Saudis.
We are, however, contemplating, and we're going to be asking the public for their feedback and their support tomorrow.
We are contemplating, you know, initiating a case like that based on government cover-up that would be for family members and first responders, and it would be for money damages and for injunctive relief related to harm that they have suffered personally.
There will not be a standing obstacle in that case.
It simply will not be dismissed on standing.
So, you know, the courts will have to deal with the merits of that case.
The question for us is, can we afford to do it?
Right now, the answer is no.
We hope to get enough support to do it.
It's going to take a major funder.
You know, Rich is talking about maybe raising $20,000 for the film project.
But, you know, to do this lawsuit, we probably are going to raise several hundred thousand dollars if we're going to do it.
If not, we're going to need to get some major law firm partners to do it.
So that's in the works, and we'll be talking more about it.
Big, could you, could you, you know, I'd just like to make the comments that the reason, in my opinion, this is a personal opinion, not by the lawyers committee, but it's my personal opinion that the reason that the government, that the courts have not allowed us in the courthouse store is precisely because we can prove our case.
That's my personal opinion.
I understand that point of view, Barb.
And you should know, Jason, it's not just 9-11 advocates that are being kept out of court on the standing obstacle.
There was a New York Times article a couple years ago.
It was focused on other issues like abortion and some other issues.
A lot of public interest advocates have been shut out of court on the standing grounds.
The New York Times actually used the phrase weaponizing the standing doctrine.
Well, we can only look to the elections, and that was utilized in many of the cases, both state and the actual Supreme Court, where these, you know, those that question the election, not allowed to do that on YouTube, by the way, you're part of the big lie now.
They tried.
FEMA's Hidden Narrative 00:13:13
They said they didn't have standing.
They didn't have to look at the evidence.
And in an era where we're supposed to trust the science, we're still not allowed to look at the science behind the demolition of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7.
Speak to that, Richard.
No, we're not allowed.
In fact, it's Building 7's collapse, which there's 11 videos of, has not been played on mainstream media.
We have, for the last 15 years, lobbied and sent press releases to mainstream media representatives.
And by the way, many times, all 535 members of Congress, it is a complete shutdown.
I did get on C-SPAN a few years back, and that was 45 minutes on Washington Journal, where they interview the senators and everybody in Washington every day.
And it turns out that that video became their most watched video ever on their program with over a million views.
But they didn't call me back to ask more questions about this phenomenon.
So no, why can't they show?
Well, why won't they show the extreme heat associated with the destruction of Building 7?
There's forensic evidence in the dust.
It's concrete powder from river to river across lower Manhattan.
But there's evidence in there of both ignited and unignited thermite.
Thermite is an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
This has been given to the U.S. attorney to be turned over to the grand jury.
This evidence, as Mick says, is dispositive.
There's proof of molten iron flowing like lava, the first responders call it.
There's proof of molten iron microspheres, the byproduct of thermite, which produces 4,000 degree temperatures.
There's proof by FEMA documented in a metallurgical examination in Appendix C of their 2002 report that there are hot sulfur corrosion attack on the steel with liquid molten iron.
NIST took over this investigation in 2002 and threw out the metallurgical examination.
So we've got that as evidence, the USGS documenting the molten iron microspheres, billions of them, up to four tons in all the World Trade Center dust, which none of this evidence, in fact, has no official accountability.
It cannot be accounted for in the official narrative.
Well, let me just talk about some of the actual officials that coincide with what you're saying that were never discussed.
Peter Bukarski, who was the head of FEMA at the time, if you go back to September 16th in his New York Newsday interview, he talks about temperatures of 2700 degree Fahrenheit.
Obviously impossible.
When you get into the hearings on 9-11, they brought in Ken Holden of FEMA, and he discussed molten metal dripping from below building six.
These are just two examples of that heat.
We obviously have the NASA thermal imagery where you had one of the heads of NIST confronted about.
He just acted like it was imaginary.
He asked, oh, could you just email me that information?
Then refused to give the professor of the school he was speaking at his email address so he could be sent that information.
This goes beyond willful ignorance and a direct purposeful cover-up of the physical information we have.
This is CNO truth, right?
Yeah.
Can I give you a hard example of what you're talking about there, Jason?
Absolutely.
So we're suing.
I'm suing on behalf of David Cole, who was our FOIA guy at the lawyers committee for a while.
He's now independent.
But he brought a suit against NIST and FEMA.
It started with FEMA.
It got ended up involving NIST.
He asked for all the data used for FEMA's building performance study, which was the first government study of the building collapses.
And the first response he got was from FEMA was, we don't have anything to show you.
Meaning they didn't have any data, no data records.
Then they explained, oh, the reason is we gave it all to NIST.
So then they transferred the FOIA, the FOIA request to NIST.
NIST eventually, four years later, after we sued them, only after we sued them, produced 3,700 pages of records, which they'd been withholding.
But they still didn't give the key evidence that you and Richard and Barb are talking about here, which is the key evidence of demolition, including the extreme temperatures.
There's only one way to get those extreme temperatures.
Jet fuel doesn't get you there.
Building contents doesn't get you there.
Okay, it takes, you know, some high-tech explosive incendiary like nanothermate to get you there.
Now, so we brought this lawsuit against those two agencies under FOIA.
It's currently in progress, Jason.
We were granted an unusual opportunity by the federal court in D.C. to do discovery.
You don't normally get discovery in a FOIA case.
So we did do four depositions of FEMA and NIST officials recently.
We also did document requests and interrogatories.
I just submitted, like yesterday, our amended summary judgment motion.
We, you know, fingers crossed, we appear to be winning that case.
There's no standing issue in FOIA cases.
We're getting to the merits there.
And we have established, for example, that FEMA, after telling David they'd done a comprehensive search, did not search any of their emails of the FEMA staff, did not search any of the computers of the FEMA staff, didn't search any of the paper records of the FEMA staff.
They just had one of their contractors make one transfer of records.
And then in response to David, they just said, we don't have anything.
We can now prove that to be a lie.
The other lie is about NIST.
And you have to listen carefully to this to understand this is an example of what you're just talking about, which is basically an intentional cover-up.
So NIST pretended to respond to David's FOIA request by searching and producing 3,700 pages of records.
The problem with that is they didn't do a real search.
What happened was that engineer Therese McAllister directed the staff person doing the search to take one list of records, only one, which was from the contractor, the one transfer from the contractor, and go find those documents on the computer database.
The searcher was not allowed to search the entire database for all building performance study records.
Now, we've just proven in that case that there was a later transfer of a lot of video and photographic evidence, which shows some of what you're talking about: the corrosion, the sulfidation, the high-temperature damage to the steel.
Well, that entire transfer of records, which came later, was not looked at in this search.
They intentionally did not look at it.
The searcher was prevented from looking at it.
So that case is about to come to a head.
But I think we're going to prove in that case that both of those agencies, it's not just like they don't want us to have legal standing to bring the case into court.
Once you find a legal avenue to get there, and FOIA is one of those avenues, there's no standing problem with FOIA, then what's their next line of defense?
Okay, now you're allowed to make your case, but we're not going to show you the evidence.
We're going to keep control of it.
So that's the problem we're dealing with.
But I can tell you we're cutting through it in this particular case.
Well, we've actually had some wins here.
Well, we're at a point that it's beyond just evidence tampering and the limiting of that information to where it is extremely difficult to go online and find archived information through mainstream articles and documentation that was around five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, where reality seems to be being scrubbed in favor of these government narratives.
And more and more, we're seeing speech attempted to be criminalized.
Can you speak to that, Richard, and how they've really gone after you and your free speech?
I'd like to do so after Richard.
Absolutely.
Yes, and since we started the new organization, Richard Gage 9-11, my wife and I, Gail, have been working so hard, as I mentioned, and we created now five, six YouTube channels.
Why?
Because the first four have been deplatformed with strikes due to what?
Mostly hate speech.
Now, they don't tell you what you said, where you said it.
And do I seem like a hateful person, Jason?
I don't even go after the perpetrators.
So I don't know what they're talking about.
It is really frustrating to deal with the level of censorship like that, where our own YouTube channel, which develops thousands of supporters, all of a sudden can not exist anymore.
It is really frustrating.
And certainly it's got to be unconstitutional, even though these are private mega corporations who theoretically don't have to honor free speech.
That's a problem.
Private corporations that have tons of government contracts and openly collude with government officials on what narratives are acceptable and not.
I just want to point that out.
Continue.
Yeah.
So let's go to Barb.
Okay.
So, yeah, Jason, you're talking about massive censorship by our government and its agents, which are corporate social media platforms, major ones, even some of the so-called alternative ones.
And the first comment I want to make is the lawyers committee and organizations like the Lawyers Committee, Architects and Engineers, et cetera, we are also actually historians.
When we submit our petitions, when we submit our legal filings, they can't get rid of those.
Those are there for the historical record, no matter what.
So that's number one.
It's very important for people to understand that history matters.
So we're never going to give up.
We are going to have legal victories.
We are just slowly but surely seeing all the ways that they are trying to block us because you have to know thine enemy, right?
In order to defeat it.
So that's number one.
Number two, you're absolutely right.
They are taking down the electronic versions of the articles, the documents, the online books, et cetera, about 9-11 truth.
They're often shadow banning them.
So you have to know the precise title of what it is you're looking for and it'll come up.
But how many people know that to do the search to begin with?
And that's why behind my back, you see my library.
I just built a library.
And what you are seeing are 9-11 books.
I have over a thousand 9-11 books.
So it's important for people like, remember Fahrenheit?
What was it?
491 or something like that?
Where there was book burning.
Well, what's happening digitally online is just the same as book burning.
There's no difference.
So you have to have your paper copies.
You have to have your physical books.
You have to have your physical journal articles printed out.
And you know what?
Just to point that out, you know, I mentioned Peter Bukarski.
I mentioned FEMA.
It's almost impossible to find the digital version of this, but here it is.
Experts, the only way to ID many victims.
And I want to read the subsection right here where it references the 2700 degrees.
What they're looking at, those items that are being recovered now, are pieces, Bukarski said.
Look, this is a 110-story building.
We're still at the top levels.
You probably are only going to find a body parts or nothing because of the fire or of the blast.
When you're talking about temperatures of 2,700 degrees, what do you have?
You have a cremation effect.
And again, because history has been scrubbed, it is almost impossible to find that.
I found that when I was doing my research, obviously, for loose change in my follow-up, Fabled Enemies, but I thought it was so important that.
I had to scan it in and make a hard copy.
Try looking that up.
It's almost impossible to find among hundreds, if not thousands of articles that point out what I like to call whispered history and the alternative story to 9-11.
Looking for Truth 00:08:41
We've only got a few more minutes, guys.
I'd really like you to promote what you have coming up in the next couple of days and really hammer at home why it's important to donate to these causes in 2022, 21 years after the event.
The reason we're having such incredible successes, as small as they may be propagated throughout the awareness of the larger public because of the censorship, is because we work so very hard.
And there aren't that many of us.
You know, there's a few hundred of us very, very active in the 9-11 truth movement.
You're looking at the tip of the spear right here.
And so this is what's going to make success for the 9-11 truth to become in get into the public consciousness.
The film we're making, 9-11 explosive evidence, excuse me, 9-11.
That's our other film, 9-11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out.
This new film, 9-11 Crime Scene to Courtroom, is the opportunity, in my opinion, along with the legal cases the lawyers committee has on the frying pan right now.
This is the film that needs to get out there and everywhere, and it needs your support.
I mean, all of our viewers.
This is a $19,000 fundraiser for the next phase of the film production.
And this is a huge fundraiser tomorrow.
Excuse me.
Tomorrow is LC's event, but that's Saturday.
Sunday is September 11th, 10 a.m. The 9-11 Truth Film Festival that I mentioned.
Everybody be there.
We'll see you there.
Excellent.
And Mick, what would you leave my audience with?
Well, I think the point you raised, which is, you know, what's the future?
What can the public do to help us move this issue forward?
As an example, one thing we hope to get support to do, maybe by Saturday or Sunday, we plan to file a new lawsuit against the FBI.
And it's regarding a major set of records, which they've been keeping secret is probably the functional word about their major bombing cases.
They decided they would send all their major bombing cases files to the National Archives.
We sent a request in at IR FOIA saying, okay, give us a copy of all that.
And they said, well, it'll cost you $2,000.
And we said, okay, we'll pay it.
You know, we want the Trade Center bombing case records.
And they came back and said, oh, we can't give you any of that.
It's all still part of a law enforcement confidential investigation.
So they're really working hard still to keep us from getting the evidence.
And we're working hard still to get it.
And we're going to get it.
But we need your support to get it.
You shouldn't assume that because we have lawyers involved, that we have a lot of money.
You know, our people are public interest.
We can't fund this ourselves.
And we've been on a shoestring basically so far.
We'd like to get to a major breakthrough here.
It's going to take some major resources to do that.
This new case we're talking about, about a government cover-up focused lawsuit, that has real potential and it takes real resources to do it.
So if you want to see us make that breakthrough, we need your help.
Barbara, close it out for my audience.
Yeah.
Why does it matter?
It matters because, as Richard said, you're looking at the tip of the spear.
The lawyers committee legally for the full truth about 9-11.
Not just the case against Saudi Arabia, which is relative to what we're doing.
It's an important case, but it's not about the whole spectrum of 9-11 truth.
You're looking at the tip of the spear, the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry.
And in order to go to the next step, to get past the gatekeeper that says even 9-11 victims, family members like Bob McElvay and first responders who lost family members because of what was in the dust.
They're saying that we don't have standing to sue.
In order to get past the gatekeepers who are saying you can't get into the courthouse door, because even 9-11 victims' family members don't have standing because they're not harmed.
Are you serious?
You need to fund us.
We're it.
I absolutely agree.
The way to fund the lawyers committee again is to go to lc911.org and donate.
It's very obvious how to do it.
And Richard, I'm not sure you've given your website yet for people to donate.
And your website, you mentioned LC911.org.
It's actually LC4.
LC4, F-O-R911.org.
There we go.
Yeah.
And RichardGage911.org, independent now of the 15-year organization of architects and engineers that I founded.
We are now able to stretch beyond the World Trade Center evidence even and bring in other very important awarenesses to the public's attention, to the attention even of the 9-11 truth movement that many are not aware of.
So we're working hard and with all of the experts that we bring to bear, we can't do that without support either.
But I think number one is the support of the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry.
They are looking to raise over $100,000 in the next year.
But tomorrow, they only need a portion of that.
That is a $10,000 goal for the Lawyers Committee tomorrow.
So what percentage of that can you personally do at home?
This is absolutely critical.
So donate at LC4FOR911.org.
Guys, I want to thank you guys for whatever you can do.
I want to thank you guys for not only putting this together, but coming on this show and battling this real fight, this real war for the truth again, almost 21 years later, because continually our entire foreign and domestic policy seems to be based on this huge lie.
You want to talk about the big lie?
The big lie is 9-11, and we must continue to confront it.
So guys, thank you so much for joining me.
And we'll be sending people your way over the next couple of days.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jason.
Thanks, Jason.
Thanks, Jason.
And there you go, guys.
There's some real true info warriors that are trying to bring this out to the public.
I do want to mention we've got events 9-10.
We've got events 9-11.
And my friend Ken Jenkins is actually going to be doing an event on 9-12, a 9-11 Truth Film Festival, where you'll be able to see my picture, Fabled Enemies, and that is at the Grand Lake Theater, the same one Richard Gage met David Ray Griffin at.
And by the way, I have also met David Ray Griffin and sat down with him.
I'm kind of in shock that he's still around.
I really thought that he was gone several years ago.
I thought it was due to cancer, and now they're telling me not only is he alive, but he's on his last legs.
David Ray Griffin has done some great work.
So support them.
If you can support this broadcast, consider buying me a coffee, $5, $10, $15.
It means the world to me.
Loose Change Final Cut and Fabled Enemies, they're free.
I want you to watch them.
I want you to share them, especially during this anniversary.
Because Saudi Arabia, that's just a small piece.
You got to look at the Israeli angle.
You got to look at the Pakistani involvement.
You got to look at the cover-up, the war games on that day.
There are so many issues regarding 9-11 again that will become not whispered history, but hidden history if these people have their way.
I want to remind you that all of my stuff is uncensored and raw over at Rockfin.
$9.99 a month or $99.99 for the year gets everybody's premium content.
It's like a Netflix for creators.
I already give everything away.
And if you're watching this on YouTube, remember we've been banned four times.
We've been demonetized for three years.
And we're not talking about suspended four times.
They've taken my channel four times and four times.
I have got it back.
So thumbs it up, subscribe, share, let people know about the broadcast because it's not about left or right.
It is always about right and wrong.
Export Selection